If MGM’s gambit succeeds, it will dodge any potential responsibility for the rampage in which Stephen Paddock killed 58 people: Our view

As if survivors of the Las Vegas massacre last year that left 58 dead and more than 500 injured have not been through enough, now many of them have been sued by MGM Resorts International, owner of the hotel that the shooter used as his deadly perch.

How any corporation could find the gall and lack of humanity to take such an action is beyond comprehension.

This much is clear: If MGM’s gambit succeeds, it will dodge any potential responsibility for the rampage in which Stephen Paddock, a guest at MGM’s Mandalay Bay hotel, shot from a 32nd-floor window into a crowd at a country music concert.

MGM's filing in federal courts means that there would be no state trials for survivors. No opportunity in the court of their choosing to dig into how Paddock managed to carry an arsenal of high-powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition into the hotel. Or to keep those weapons hidden in his room for days.

Instead, many survivors of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history now find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits filed by a giant corporation.

MGM’s novel legal theory grows out of a federal law passed after the 9/11 terror attacks, known as the SAFETY Act, which was meant to shield from liability companies that provide security services — from technology and equipment to security protection — when they fail to prevent a terrorist attack. To be covered by the law, companies must first get certification from the Homeland Security Department.

According to MGM’s lawsuits, the company that provided security for the country music concert that was the target of Paddock’s rampage has that certification. “As a result, the SAFETY Act applies to and governs all actions and any claims arising out of or relating to Paddock’s mass attack,” its lawyers argue.

The federal law was meant to protect companies, for example, that come up with new technologies to thwart terrorist attacks, but might be reluctant to market them for fear of liability if a terrorist attack occurred. Whether it was meant to shield anyone connected to a certified company, we’ll let the courts decide.

The outrage is that any company would slap lawsuits on mass violence survivors. According to California plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Robinson, at least four of his clients whose loved ones were killed have been sued by MGM.

The corporation has filed against 1,900 survivors in eight states from East Coast to West, including California, Florida, Nevada and New York. Its goal is to get the cases moved to federal court, where it would be protected under the SAFETY Act.

An MGM statement says that it is not seeking money or attorneys’ fees, and that its complaint is “directed only at people who either have already sued us or have threatened to sue us.” MGM also argues that its action provides defendants “with the opportunity for a more timely resolution.”

Geez, maybe the survivors should be thanking MGM.

Instead, the company bought itself calls for a boycott of its many properties at #BoycottMGM, and plenty of critics, one of whom tweeted: “Suing the victims of the mass shooting to prevent liability claims is disgusting.”

Certainly, MGM has a right to defend itself against lawsuits, but survivors and families of those killed deserve their day in a court they choose and answers to how a mass murderer eluded security.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.